You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Well, yeah, all perceiving functions perceive or recognize things. Ni uses it to perceive the path to a long term goal. Me? I'm just playing with the light coming off my phone on the walls.

Yeah. But did you know I only mentioned the active definition of Ni?

Passive definition is what is mostly used is intuition/past memories popping out of your head and it's quite like swimming in a pool of ideas/gists of memories. And imagination is used to further explore. But it is subjective imagination so it doesn't necessarily mean what you imagine is reality.

*turns on flashlight from phone and moves phone with wrists being turnt up*

You have no idea what you're messing with. There is a very significant difference. Apparently your ignorant knowledge make you equate past with Si.

Both use the past but in entirely different ways.

I think Lenore Thomson's writings have some relevance here. I don't entirely subscribe to her version of the functions (I prefer Nardi for his having done empirical explorations of the functions), but she draws several parallels between Si and Ni, even as she contrasts the two.

“Because we usually associate Intuition with ‘feelings’ and hunches, the conceptual nature of Introverted Intuition may be difficult to appreciate. Like its Extraverted counterpart, Introverted Intuition is a Perceiving function, but it’s also a left-brain function. The left-brain won’t focus on many things at once. It depends on words and signs to make outward experience predictable and orderly” (223).

“This is most clear in the areas governed by Extraverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling, the left-brained Judgment functions. ETJs and EFJs, whose Judging skills are dominant, wield language like a knife, separating meaningful sense impressions from all the nameless experiential stuff that surrounds it. Such types may be hard pressed to grant the reality of impressions that can’t be explained or talked about” (223).

“The left-brain Perceiving functions are different. Introverted Sensation and Introverted Intuition make us aware of all our sensory impressions, notwithstanding prevailing categories of knowledge. In consequence, ISJs and INJs tend to have interests and priorities that strike others as unpredictable or esoteric” (224).”

“On the other hand, as left-brain types, ISJs and INJs also need conceptual control over their outer world. For this reason, both types have a strong investment in the structure of public information. ISJs are concerned with making that structure secure, whereas INJs are interested in changing or improving it” (224).

“For example, at a recent board meeting, an ISTJ accountant told the group that he enjoyed recording the organization’s income and expenditures, but he didn’t want to be involved with the money itself—counting it, bringing it to the bank, and so forth. This is a classic Introverted Sensing approach. Material reality is just so much raw experience. It has to be controlled with a stable mental framework” (225).

“Introverted Intuition moves us in the opposite direction. It tells us that changing our frame of mind can change the world. For example, a recent article advises the parents of a fussy or demanding baby not to describe the fact as difficult but to recognize that such children have vivid, strong, and rich personalities. This is how Introverted Intuition works. The material facts remain the same, but we organize them in a new conceptual pattern that changes their meaning and gives us new options for behavior” (224).

In general, her classification of the sensing functions is that they're ALL about sensing and the senses, but each one processes sensing in a different way. Si tends to organize and classify sensations, while Ni strives to "interpret" the sensations to learn what they "really mean".

An ISTJ friend of mine totally keeps track of the ENSO (the El Nino Southern Oscillation) and can tell you in exquisite detail what the climate is going to be like over the next few months. This would seem to be entirely predictive, but really it's just organization of facts. He doesn't "interpret" the ENSO, the interpretation is already provided based on past data. Si predicts the future mostly by assuming that the future will work pretty much like the past.

Ni doesn't do that. Instead, what Ni is adept at doing is taking in brand new information that no one has analyzed before, figure out what it means, and make predictions that would appear to have no basis in reality. Making "predictions" based on known data (like El Nino oscillations) is boring to Ni types such as INTJs, though the fact that the link exists is fascinating. Figuring out a completely new problem is where Ni types are at home.

The reason that Ni types are good at that is that they register patterns that can't easily be put into words. It's why the patterns seem vague and undefined. But really, it's no more vague or undefined than a dance or the taste of a pear: it just can't be put into words AND it isn't as concrete as a dance or a pear. Ni thinking tends to be in terms of these patterns, the ability to "just look at a problem" and "see" what is "really" going on underneath the hood. Just as you can taste a pear blindfolded and accurately guess that it is a pear, an Ni type can take in a new problem and accurately see possible solutions to it.

An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

I think Lenore Thomson's writings have some relevance here. I don't entirely subscribe to her version of the functions (I prefer Nardi for his having done empirical explorations of the functions), but she draws several parallels between Si and Ni, even as she contrasts the two.

In general, her classification of the sensing functions is that they're ALL about sensing and the senses, but each one processes sensing in a different way. Si tends to organize and classify sensations, while Ni strives to "interpret" the sensations to learn what they "really mean".

An ISTJ friend of mine totally keeps track of the ENSO (the El Nino Southern Oscillation) and can tell you in exquisite detail what the climate is going to be like over the next few months. This would seem to be entirely predictive, but really it's just organization of facts. He doesn't "interpret" the ENSO, the interpretation is already provided based on past data. Si predicts the future mostly by assuming that the future will work pretty much like the past.

Ni doesn't do that. Instead, what Ni is adept at doing is taking in brand new information that no one has analyzed before, figure out what it means, and make predictions that would appear to have no basis in reality. Making "predictions" based on known data (like El Nino oscillations) is boring to Ni types such as INTJs, though the fact that the link exists is fascinating. Figuring out a completely new problem is where Ni types are at home.

The reason that Ni types are good at that is that they register patterns that can't easily be put into words. It's why the patterns seem vague and undefined. But really, it's no more vague or undefined than a dance or the taste of a pear: it just can't be put into words AND it isn't as concrete as a dance or a pear. Ni thinking tends to be in terms of these patterns, the ability to "just look at a problem" and "see" what is "really" going on underneath the hood. Just as you can taste a pear blindfolded and accurately guess that it is a pear, an Ni type can take in a new problem and accurately see possible solutions to it.

Personally I think making function comparisons like this help me to interpret and understand them better much more than say, the inteoverted/extroverted versions of each function. To me, Fi and Ti share much more in common than Fi and Fe, therefore, as long as you use one of them, which everyone does, you could better understand the other introverted judging function, or extroverted, you get my point. At least, that's how I best understand concepts is finding that correlation and relationship between things, then applying that same underlying relationship to those new concepts.

I loved reading this post! I already had a firm grasp of Ni and Si, but it was fun to read nonetheless.

The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams
-Eleanor Roosevelt

In general, her classification of the sensing functions is that they're ALL about sensing and the senses, but each one processes sensing in a different way. Si tends to organize and classify sensations, while Ni strives to "interpret" the sensations to learn what they "really mean".

Forgive me for being pedantic, but it's the judgement functions that organise and classify, not the perceiving functions. Si "just perceives", in the same way Se, Ne & Ni "just perceive".

Si, pure and simply, is to understand "sensation" as being wholly subjective. "Physicality" is not something you apprehend as something you "submit" yourself to, or how you establish a connection with the world around you - it has the opposite effect of severing that connection. To "sense" the world, in this sense, is to ground yourself in your own experience. This differs greatly from Se, which understands sensation and physicality to be wholly objective, and fundamentally about "connecting" with the world around you - there's a force and reactivity present in Se that Si lacks. Those that prefer Si, because of this, comes across as very grounded, accommodating, and tough to lead by the nose.

I would also posit that Si has nothing to do with perceiving "the future" - it's important to note that Si concerns itself purely and simply with "what is". It just so happens that "what is" is fundamentally attached to the subject, and not the object.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but it's the judgement functions that organise and classify, not the perceiving functions. Si "just perceives", in the same way Se, Ne & Ni "just perceive".

Si, pure and simply, is to understand "sensation" as being wholly subjective. "Physicality" is not something you apprehend as something you "submit" yourself to, or how you establish a connection with the world around you - it has the opposite effect of severing that connection. To "sense" the world, in this sense, is to ground yourself in your own experience. This differs greatly from Se, which understands sensation and physicality to be wholly objective, and fundamentally about "connecting" with the world around you - there's a force and reactivity present in Se that Si lacks. Those that prefer Si, because of this, comes across as very grounded, accommodating, and tough to lead by the nose.

I would also posit that Si has nothing to do with perceiving "the future" - it's important to note that Si concerns itself purely and simply with "what is". It just so happens that "what is" is fundamentally attached to the subject, and not the object.

That "organize and classify" initially concerned me as well, but Lenore likely understands this in terms of "undifferentiated functions". For every bit of data, all functional products are there, but the function we consider being "used" is simply the products that have been abstracted (set apart) in consciousness. And particularly for Pi (left brain "J" perspectives), the "organizing and classifying" then would be the associated Je function in the background working with Si or Ni.

Also, It's not really about Si "perceiving" the future; the emphasis was "assuming that the future will work pretty much like the past", so it's still the past being perceived, and then generalized to the future.

(I also think "In general, her classification of the sensing functions is that they're ALL about sensing and the senses", was meant "perceiving" functions).

You can also see the tandems in that Ne deals with external patterns stored in memory (working with Si), while Ni "taking in brand new information" is then working with Se.

Anyhow, since autistic brains are unable to store information in a clear structure, thus causing it to reinterpret all data over and over

Serendipity: wouldn't this be very close to the Ni state
Serendipity: ?

Serendipity: Where as Ni is an intuitive process that doesn't store data but reinterprets as it goes?
Serendipity: Thus autistic persons could exhibit extreme Si-tendencies but actually may be part of the Ni-core
Serendipity: Because the wish for strict rigid structures in the external environment is seemingly Si-typic but as
Serendipity: autists have trouble because it is reinterpreted over and over
Serendipity: it is a safe-haven for a Ni-inclined character.
Serendipity: Forcing a Si structure on the outside world instead of the internal.